When the U.S. Department of Agriculture implemented the National Organic Program in 2002, the intent was to standardize the requirements and production practices that would define exactly what constitutes organic farming. While many have been farming “organically” for generations, consumers wanted a consistent definition and legal assurance for their organic purchases.

When the U.S. Department of Agriculture implemented the National Organic Program in 2002, the intent was to standardize the requirements and production practices that would define exactly what constitutes organic farming. While many have been farming “organically” for generations, consumers wanted a consistent definition and legal assurance for their organic purchases.

Needless to say, the definitions and requirements were difficult to establish and not without controversy. While most would understand organic to mean animals raised without the use of antibiotics, supplemental hormones, etc., and plants grown without pesticides or use of genetic engineering, there were many minute details that had to be applied universally to organic farming and processing. All in all, it was not a bad idea.

The existing organic community feared the National Organic Program would be a means to bring large-scale farming into a system that had long been dominated by small-scale family farmers. Producing more organic food and bringing more land under organic cultivation was seen as a good thing, but it was not seen as acceptable to narrowly define “organic” as a production practice only and one with weakened standards as well. Those who question this narrow definition feel that large “industrial” or “factory farms” cannot provide the environmental protection, ethical animal care and consumer connections that small family farms can.

Recently the National Organic Program has come under fire for inadequate enforcement of its own standards. A complaint was recently filed with the USDA against the 5,300-cow Aurora Organic Dairy in Colorado. It alleges Aurora’s pasture is nothing more than a dirt lot, basically devoid of any edible grass, a situation prohibited under the federal standards and generally associated with conventional, large-scale farming.

Nutritionist Joan Dye Gussow’s 1996 article “Can an organic Twinkie be certified?” asked whether organic food should simply be a parallel to the existing food system, with its highly processed sugary junk food, or be something more. Should it also reflect the socially responsible farming practices that were traditionally part of organic and family farming? Should organic standards mandate that cows — ruminants and grazers by nature — be allowed to do what comes naturally? Should chickens that by their nature forage for insects and grass be allowed to do so? Or can both cows and chickens be raised organically in confinement if they are fed organic feed?

It seems that the parallel system is here. Many traditional junk foods are now available in “organic” versions, large herds like Aurora Dairy do not allow their cattle to graze, and many organic chickens grow and lay eggs without the ability to forage naturally but are instead fed diets supplemented with synthetic chemicals and basically raised in confinement. A petition submitted to the USDA on Jan. 7 by Organic Valley and Tyson Foods specifically requests the National Organic Program to continue to allow the feeding of synthetic methionine (an essential amino acid traditionally obtained from a foraged diet) beyond the October 2005 prohibition date.

Are large organic producers using the federal program to transform organic farming into industrial organic farming? It would appear so.

Granted, it is difficult to incorporate ethical standards and societal values into government regulations, but it seems that medicine, consumer protection and Social Security have at least tried to do so. The advocates of large-scale organic farming say they want to provide affordable organic food to American consumers. Nonsense. Promoting large-scale farming with the intent of providing cheap food, whether in an organic system or in a conventional one, is precisely what has and will continue to drive small family farms out of business: a parallel system with parallel results.

Given a living wage, consumers have shown they will buy nutritious organic food, and farmers, if paid a living wage for what they produce, will stay in business.

So wouldn’t it be more ethical for Aurora Dairy, rather than citing misleading reasons for its size and failure to graze its cattle, to really farm organically and graze its cattle at least seasonally? Wouldn’t it make more sense for Organic Valley and Tyson Foods to find ways to really raise their chickens organically as opposed to petitioning the USDA for exceptions to the legal standards?

* We can continue to go down the path of the “organic Twinkie” and the parallel organic food system, but now might be a good time to stop. Stop and realize that, like health care, Social Security and protection of the environment, food production has to have ethics involved, not just profit for industrial farmers.
Jim Goodman

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research and / or educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use this material for purposes other than provided by law. You must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html